IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Executive Pilots Association & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Air India Limited & Ors. – Respondents
LPA 284 of 2022 and C.M. Nos. 20837 of 2022 & 20839 of 2022
Decided On : 03-07-2023
Reduction of Allowances - Employment Dispute - Air India - Office orders dated 20.03.2020, 22.07.2020 and 18.12.2020 - Reduction in allowances for pilots challenged in W.P.(C) 416/2021 - Court held reduction in allowances proportional to amount received, based on policy decision, no interference required - Appeal dismissed
Fact of the Case:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Air India, a loss-making public sector undertaking, rationalized allowances of its employees, including pilots. The reduction in allowances for pilots was challenged in W.P.(C) 416/2021. The court held that the reduction was proportional to the amount of allowances received, based on a policy decision, and required no interference.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reduction in allowances was based on a policy decision and was proportional to the amount of allowances received by the employees. It held that the decision to reduce allowances was justified due to the grave impact of the pandemic on the aviation sector.
Issues: The main issue was whether the reduction in allowances for pilots was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that in economic and fiscal regulatory matters, there is far greater latitude available to the executive, and the judiciary should not interfere unless the policy is contrary to law or the Constitution. It emphasized that courts should not question the efficacy of a policy decision as long as it does not offend any provision of the statute or the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, refraining from setting aside the impugned judgment, and held that it was not within its ambit to interfere with the impugned office orders passed by the respondents during the COVID-19 pandemic.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 416/2021, vide Judgment dated 07.02.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners, i.e., Executive Pilots Association & Anr., have filed the instant appeal.
2. Shorn of details the facts leading to the instant LPA are as under:
i. It is stated that during the COVID-19 pandemic, since the aviation sector suffered a serious hit both commercially and financially, the Ministry of Civil Aviation took a conscious decision of reducing and then stopping the international and domestic flights for a considerable period of time.
ii. Since Air India was already a loss making public sector undertaking, a policy decision was taken to rationalize the allowances of its employees. This decision was taken in consultation with the Ministry of Civil Aviation.
iii. The cuts in allowances were made primarily in the case of the senior cadre employees of the organization, i.e., engineers, pilots and other general category officers. The decision to cut the salaries of the officers was taken by office orders dated 20.03.2020, 22.07.2020 and 18.12.2020. Vide the above said orders the allowances of pilots were first reduced by 40%. However, after reviewing the situation, the same was reduced to 35% from 40% subsequently. Similarly, the allowances for general category officers was initially reduced to 50% which was later revised to 30%. Similarly, in the case of cabin crew, the cut in their allowance was reduced to 20%.
iv. The order reducing the allowances of the pilots is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) 416/2021, from which the instant appeal arises.
3. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the reduction has been challenged by the Appellants in the present LPA and the All India Aircraft Engineers Association has chosen not to challenge the impugned Judgment dated 07.02.2022.
4. Though before the learned Single Judge the issue of maintainability of the writ petition was taken up by Respondent No.1/Air India, but the learned Single Judge rejected the said contention and decided the writ petition on merits.
5. The learned Single Judge held that the rationalisation was only with regard to the allowances being paid to the employees and not in the salary component of the employees, i.e., the basic pay and other necessary allowances like DA, HRA, which are paid to all the employees and have not been reduced. The learned Single Judge held that the policy evolved by Air India was for uniform reduction in allowances which was proportional to the amount of allowances received by the employees. The higher the allowances greater was the reduction. The learned Single Judge took judicial notice of the fact that the aviation sector suffered gravely due to stoppage of the airlines, and, therefore, the decision to reduce the allowances was based on policy decision which required no interference. It is this judgment which is under challenge in the instant appeal.
6. Mr. Vivek Kohli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants, contends that Air India was the only airline which was flying under the Vande Bharat Mission and the pilots did a yeomen's job in transporting stranded passengers from across the world to our country. He states that the pilots put their lives at risk for this purpose. He states that the majority of the salary received by the pilots is by emoluments and the reduction in allowances hit the pilots the most. He states that other employees do not get as much allowances as the pilots and the pilots who have actually worked during the pandemic are being subject to a greater loss compared to the other employees who were not flying or were not involved in the operation of transporting people across the world to the country. He, therefore, states that the decision taken by Air India to reduce allowances discriminates the pilots against other employees since other employees do not get as many allowances as the pilots
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in economic and fiscal regulatory matters, courts should exercise restraint and not interfere with policy decisions unless they are clearly il....
Point of law: There is a uniform policy, reducing the allowances proportionally. In other words, higher the allowance, higher the amount of reduction. The allowances of the general category employees....
Point of law: There is a uniform policy, reducing the allowances proportionally. In other words, higher the allowance, higher the amount of reduction. The allowances of the general category employees....
The High Court can issue a writ of mandamus to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in ord....
Compassionate appointments are contingent upon the issuance of a medical invalidation certificate, and undertakings provided under employment benefit schemes are binding and cannot be disregarded.
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a private company, even if it discharges a public function, unless the contract of service is governed or regulated b....
The policy decision can be rendered unconstitutional only in the case of arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity, and malafide.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.